This week, Judge McAfee called Terrance Bradley, a former law firm partner and divorce attorney for Nathan Wade, back to the stand.
He was called back because McAfee had ruled that Bradley had wrongly claimed attorney-client privilege in previous testimony.
Talking Points…
- The Willis affair
- Bradley testifies again
- Analysis
The affair between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade came to light after a filing by Michael Roman, one of the Trump case's co-defendants. Roman's filing wanted to explore a possible conflict of interest based on the timeline of the Willis affair with Wade, suggesting that Willis and/or Wade benefitted financially from the case.
The matter got even more tangled when it appeared that Willis had lied about the timeline of the affair, initially claiming that the affair had not started until after the case was filed. Testimony from other witnesses, including Bradley and some cell phone data, seemed to contradict that claim.
After Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege on certain aspects of the affair, Judge McAfee ruled that he believed Bradley claimed privilege in areas where he could actually testify. So, McAfee ordered that Bradley needed to retake the stand and face questions from the Defense.
Bradley was back in court on Tuesday, but it did not go smoothly. He was asked to explain some texts that he had sent regarding the relationship and when he was asked to clarify messages that were exchanged between himself and Defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant, he backtracked a bit, stating that he was "speculating" when he answered her question about the timeline of the Willis and Wade affair.
Defense attorney Richard Rice then went on the attack, asking:
"As a normal course of relationships with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?
"Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley? Do you tell lies about your friends?"
Bradley responded:
"Have I told lies about my friends? I could have, I don't know."
Steve Sadow, another defense attorney for Trump, also laid into Bradley, asking him:
"You want the court to believe that instead of saying nothing, you decided on your own to speculate?"
Bradley answered in the affirmative that he had speculated in this instance.
According to Bradley, after a friendship that lasted a decade, he claimed he had not spoken to Wade or Willis in about two years. This hiccup in the testimony of Bradley may seem damaging to the Defense, but several other witnesses had also testified to the timeline of the affair, which would mean that if they are telling the truth, Willis lied under oath, opening her up to not only removal from this case but could also lead to problems with the bar. There is also the fact that it now looks like Willis and/or Wade "got to" Bradley to try to help them out in the case. The optics on this are just horrible for all involved.
The obvious question is how this will impact the case if Willis gets removed. If that happens, her replacement will have to decide if he or she would like to move forward with the case. This would still be a win for Trump even if they do move forward, as the case would likely see a significant delay so the incoming DA could get familiar with the case, and that is really what Trump wants to see so this case does not impact the general election if he is found guilty.
